To many people, the idea of parole, which is when someone is released from prison to be supervised in the community before the end of that person’s sentence, seems like an unwarranted boon for the offender at the expense of public safety. It can seem like the offender is getting off easy. Utah’s approach, however, is to use parole primarily as a public safety tool. An often misunderstood fact is that when a person’s prison term expires, the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole has no authority to impose any supervision or oversight requirements on that person. When the Board releases a person before a sentence expires, then Adult Probation and Parole can supervise that person to ensure that the person follows the rules and does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. The truth is, a correctly timed parole can be a massive benefit to public safety and will reduce crime in general over time. This is for two main reasons: First, longer times in prison do not correlate with reduced recidivism and may actually increase risk to public safety. Second, a supervised transition into the community helps immensely with long-term offender success and stability, which is the only way to reduce crime in the long-run.
How Sentencing Works in Utah
In Utah, we use an indeterminate sentencing system when it comes to prison time. A third-degree felony is usually 0-5 years, a second-degree felony is usually 1-15 years, and a first-degree felony is usually 5-life. These ranges are to allow the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole the flexibility to continue to hold someone if the person’s behavior in prison presents an ongoing safety risk. They create a maximum sentence to ensure that punishments are not unconstitutionally excessive or disproportionate, but they are not based on any studies or evidence about long-term risk reduction. Instead, Utah uses sentencing guidelines to create more appropriate expectations based on the category of crime and the criminal history of the person. The guidelines are nearly always significantly shorter than the statutory maximum sentence, which means that Utah’s system favors the use of parole.
Longer Prison Sentences for Some Can Increase Safety Risks
Most people who come to prison will eventually return to the community. The public safety focus, therefore, needs to be on how risky the person is when they are returned to the community, and not on the total length of time spent in prison. There is strong evidence that longer prison sentences can increase some offenders’ risk. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a correlation between shorter prison sentences and increased risk to reoffend. (For example: source, source, source (“Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour.”)). So, in an ideal world, the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole would release people on parole after they have had time to reduce their risk to reoffend through evidence-based programs in the prison. If the prison sentence is too short, then there is not time to complete necessary programming and to have sufficient time to reflect. If the sentence is too long, then a person might lose important skills for living in the community, become inured to crime and violence, and become “institutionalized,” meaning they have replaced the community values for the modes of behavior that keep them safe while in prison.
Supervised Parole Furthers Public Safety Goals
In addition to this, having a supervised transition into the community is nearly always preferable to dropping an offender off outside the prison with a bus ticket to wherever and no plan, no job, and no community support. While parole supervision is never perfect, it is still far more likely that people will be caught if they continue to break the law after getting out of prison. Parole agents also help connect offenders to social services, housing, and jobs. This greatly improves accountability and stability in the community.
How This Plays Out
Consider two scenarios with the same person convicted of a second-degree felony for domestic abuse. In the first scenario, the person is held the full 15 years and then is released to the community with no supervision. By operation of law, that person must be immediately released with no restrictions on his liberty. It does not matter if the offender has failed to complete important treatment or programming. It does not matter if the offender’s risk score is intensive and has only gone up since coming to prison. It does not matter if the offender had a string of violent disciplinary violations before he reached the statutory maximum sentence. It does not matter if the offender made comments to his cellmate about getting even with everyone once he gets out. He must be released. He will not be supervised in any way. If there is not a long-term or permanent protective order in place, there is no reason why that person couldn’t contact their prior victims immediately. This is a public safety disaster and should be avoided when at all possible.
In the second scenario, the person serves five years based on the guidelines. Motivated by the chance of parole, he has completed domestic violence counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy, anger management classes, and substance use treatment. His risk score on a validated assessment is at an all time low. He is released to community supervision with restrictive conditions that include GPS monitoring and no contact with the victim or any of her family members. After somewhere between two to four years of supervision, he has a job, has continued therapy, and has never attempted to contact the victim in any way. His risk to reoffend is now in a category nearing that of the average person, and the Board votes to terminate the sentence.
In the first scenario, the person was punished with 15 years in prison, but it created an unacceptable risk to public safety upon his release. In the second scenario, the person only served five years in prison and another 3 or so years on parole, but is now a functioning, contributing member of society.
Of course, in reality, these scenarios are much messier. Still, in most situations, it is better to parole a person when their risk is lower and then have them be on community supervision until they stabilize. Parole is a public safety tool.